18 August 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceIndiana Court of AppealsAugust 18, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Indiana: AI rules for lawyers
Indiana, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
No AI-specific rule of court or professional conduct for lawyers was found in Indiana; the existing rules apply. Rule 1.1 Comment [6] says lawyers should keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology relevant to their practice.
Verify every citation. The Court of Appeals has cautioned attorneys and pro se litigants against using AI for legal research without independently verifying the citations.
In federal court in Indiana, a lawyer was personally sanctioned $6,000 under Rule 11 for unverified AI-generated citations in three briefs (the magistrate judge had recommended $15,000, applying Indiana Rules 1.1, 3.1 and 3.3), and the matter was referred to the Indiana attorney disciplinary commission.
The Supreme Court's internal AI policy and the trial-court model policies are for judges and court staff, not lawyers. Individual trial courts may adopt their own policies from the toolkit, so check the court and judge.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. No statewide rule or order requiring AI disclosure or certification was found; local and judge-specific orders were not exhaustively checked.
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Indiana in the last 12 months
No new or changed AI rules recorded for Indiana in the last 12 months.
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
28 May 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUS District Court, Southern District of IndianaFiled 05/28/25; Date: 5/28/2025Last checked 31 October 2026
21 February 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUS District Court, Southern District of IndianaFiled 02/21/25Last checked 31 October 2026
In force from 1 January 2018Binding ruleIndiana Supreme CourtEffective January 1, 2018Last checked 31 October 2026
August 6, 2025; start date not confirmedPractice noteIndiana Supreme Court / Office of Judicial AdministrationAugust 6, 2025Last checked 31 October 2026
February 17, 2026; start date not confirmedPractice noteIndiana Supreme Court AI Governance CommitteeFebruary 17, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Indiana Court of Appeals: Williams v. Kirch, No. 25A-SC-196 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2025): warning on AI-generated citations · last checked
- US District Court, Southern District of Indiana: Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326: Order on Report and Recommendation ($6,000 sanction for AI-fabricated citations) · last checked
- US District Court, Southern District of Indiana: Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326: Report and Recommendation on AI-fabricated citations · last checked
- Indiana Supreme Court: Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 (Competence), Comment [6] on technology · last checked
- Indiana Supreme Court / Office of Judicial Administration: Indiana Supreme Court internal AI use policy (reported in Indiana Court Times) · last checked
- Indiana Supreme Court AI Governance Committee: Model AI use policy toolkit for Indiana trial courts (reported in Indiana Court Times) · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.